Law Firm Staff Poaching Is Becoming a Problem: The Morning Minute
The news and analysis you need to start your day.
November 29, 2021 at 06:00 AM
6 minute read
Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.
WHAT WE'RE WATCHING
PRO POACHING - If you run a law firm and have been under the impression that the legal industry talent war is just about attorneys, you might want to check on your other staff members before the resignation letters start rolling in. As Law.com's Andrew Maloney reports, everyone from secretaries and litigation support professionals to financial analysts and strategic C-suite leaders are being courted by competitors. In fact, a recent survey of law firm business professionals pegged "staff poaching" as the second-highest threat to firm profitability, amid talent-related risks such as lawyer recruiting and associate salary increases. Staff-related concerns are partly due to dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic that have given employees everywhere new leverage over employers. But, particularly in Big Law, it also relates to a wave of new roles focused on pricing and profitability, combined with the fact that firm leaders are often reluctant to bring in unproven talent. "[Firms] aren't necessarily interested in holding open tryouts," said Bill Josten, manager of enterprise content for Thomson Reuters, which published its 2021 Law Firm Business Leaders Report last week. "They want to acquire proven talent. If you watch those types of roles, and individuals in those roles, there's a high degree of mobility—you see a lot of mobility in those types of roles that are in those expanding demand areas for law firms."
SUGAR AND SPICE - The DOJ's push to block a merger of sugar behemoths in Delaware federal court is a must-watch antitrust case, if you're into that sort of thing. Carl Hittinger, a partner who heads the antitrust practice group at Baker & Hostetler in Philadelphia, told Law.com's Michael A. Mora that the government's lawsuit to stop the United States Sugar Corp. from acquiring its rival, Imperial Sugar Co., is going to turn on the issue of market definition. "This case may be one of the major cases going forward on how you define relevant market even further," said Hittinger, who does not represent either party in the litigation. "I don't see a judge looking at this and saying, 'I know that they're sugar substitutes, so I don't think this complaint is valid.'" The DOJ alleged that the merger of U.S. Sugar and Imperial Sugar announced in March, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, thereby leaving most refined sugar sales in the Southeastern part of the country in the surviving entity from the merger, according to the lawsuit. As a result, the DOJ has predicted the merger would lead to higher prices for American businesses and consumers to buy refined sugar for use in foods and beverages. The government has also pushed back against the argument that customers, including manufacturers, could easily switch to other types of sweeteners if refined sugar prices rose too high.
FAULTY FORMULA? - Rite Aid was hit with a consumer class action Thursday in New York Southern District Court over its Tugaboos brand "Toddler Beginnings" formula. The suit, filed by Sheehan & Associates, alleges that the product's labeling falsely suggests that the transition formula is nutritionally adequate for children over a year and that it does not contain non-genetically modified ingredients. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 7:21-cv-10079, Martelli v. Rite Aid Corporation. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.
EDITOR'S PICKS
- Day Pitney Bows Out of Controversial Sandy Hook Case By Dylan Jackson
- Amid Backlash, Yale Law Dean Apologizes for School's Handling of 'Trap House' Email Controversy By Christine Charnosky
- Ohio Justices Divided Over Sanctions for Lawyer Who Said 'Some Not-So-Nice Things About This Court' By Allison Dunn
- Critical Mass by Law.com's Ellen Bardash: Pharmacies Found Liable In First Opioid Crisis Verdict, Monsanto Blocked On One Roundup Appeal While Arguing Another. By Ellen Bardash
- Appeals Court: Policyholder Whose Employer Erroneously Withdrew Higher Premiums Not Entitled to Increased Life Insurance Coverage By Allison Dunn
WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING
CREDIT AND BLAME - Major Allen & Overy client Credit Suisse has signaled that it plans to limit the work it provides to the firm in the future after the bank raised concerns about potential client conflicts and data breaches within the firm. As Law.com International's Rose Walker recently reported, two people with knowledge of the situation said that the bank has raised concerns over potential data breaches within the firm. The people added that the bank's GC Romeo Cerutti has also been particularly unhappy over A&O's adviser role to failed financier Greensill Capital. A&O advised the financier on its funding for an attempted IPO, and its restructuring process. Credit Suisse is currently facing investor claims attempting to win back losses from investments linked to Greensill. But as Walker and Law.com International's Varsha Patel also reported last week, several observers of the falling out between A&O and Credit Suisse have sided with the law firm, calling Credit Suisse's move "harsh," "unfair" and "hypocritical," particularly since the bank hardly has a spotless reputation itself. "Credit Suisse has had a shocking few years and it's helpful if they can point elsewhere," said one GC at an industrials group. "It all feels very hypocritical, and [taking issue] over Greensill seems very much like the pot calling the kettle black."
WHAT YOU SAID
"While today is not one for celebration, it is one for reflection. This case, by all accounts, should have been opened and closed … the violent stalking and lynching of Ahmaud Arbery was documented on video for the world to witness. But yet, because of the deep cracks, flaws and biases in our systems, we were left to wonder if we would ever see justice."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
6 minute read'Serious Legal Errors'?: Rival League May Appeal Following Dismissal of Soccer Antitrust Case
6 minute read28 Firms Supporting Retired Barnes & Thornburg Litigator in Georgia Supreme Court Malpractice Case
7 minute readHow Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 2Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 3Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
- 4Georgia Justices Urged to Revive Malpractice Suit Against Retired Barnes & Thornburg Atty
- 5How Gibson Dunn Lawyers Helped Assemble the LA FireAid Benefit Concert in 'Extreme' Time Crunch
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250